Awards

Sunday, April 20, 2014

Others have already pointed out the absurdity that gay marriage is becoming a right in places where plastic bags and large sodas are becoming against the law. This sort of next wave civil rights step is only an expansion of freedom if you aren't paying attention.

All the arguments over the differences between civil unions and marriage are largely meaningless. Once gay marriage is recognized, then marriage becomes nothing more than a civil union. The real casualty is the destruction of the word "marriage", but the left is adept as destroying language and replacing meaningful words with meaningless words.

There was no word in Newspeak for freedom. We can look forward to an English language in which there is no word for marriage. And what does freedom mean anyway in a country where most things are banned, but we are constantly throwing holidays to celebrate how free we are?

But if marriage is no longer refers to a natural social institution, but now means a civil union recognized by the state, then why stop at two? Gay rights advocates insist that there is some magic difference between polygamy and gay marriage. There isn't any difference except the number. And if we're not going to be bound by any antiquated notion that marriage is an organic institution between man and woman, then why should we be bound by mere number?

Surely in our enlightened age and time, it can be possible for large groups of consenting adults to tie their confusing knots together in any number from 2 to 2,000.

True marriage equality would completely open up the concept. But it's not actually equality that we're talking about. It's someone's idea of the social good. And the social good is served by gay marriage, but not by polygamy.

The question is whose social good is it?

Equality and justice are words that the left uses to cloud the question of who advocates the causes and who benefits from them. Who decides that the cause of justice and equality is served by limiting marriage to two gay men, rather than four gay men, three bisexual men, two women and a giraffe?

The rhetoric of equality asserts a just cause while overlooking the social good. Rights are demanded. The demand is absolute and the logic for it remains left behind in a desk drawer on the wrong side of the table. Instead there are calls for empathy. "If you only knew a gay couple." Hysterical condemnations. "I'm pretty sure you're the devil", one recent email to me began. And a whole lot of vague promises about the good things that will follow once we're all paying for it.

We aren't truly moving toward anarchy or some libertarian order, but a calculated form of repression in which shrill demands substitute for legal guidelines and those who scream the loudest get the most rights.

The new freedoms are largely random and chaotic. Donate enough money to the right people while helping out the left and a special addition to the marriage split-level house will be carved out for you. Why? Because there will be a lot of yelling. Naturally. And if the polygamists yell loudly enough and donate enough money, they'll get their own marriage expansion as well because that is how things work now.

There is no longer a fixed notion of rights. The trappings of equality and angry causes are hollow. The legal doctrine on which courts make their decisions are targets in search of arrows, emotions hunting around for precedents to wrap them in. These decisions are not rational, but rather rationalizations. Their only anchor is a new role for government in protecting any group that is officially marginalized.

The old Bill of Rights extended rights irrespective of group membership. The new one wipes out universal rights and replaces them with particular privileges. Entire amendments may sink beneath the waves, but a few groups get comfortable deck chairs on the Titanic.

Why is one group protected rather than another? Why do gay activists get a government-bonded right, complete with Federal enforcement, while polygamy is outlawed? The only answers are rationalizations. With morality sinking fast and few common values that the people in charge will accept, there is no longer a common value system to rely on.

Progressive morality is constantly being reshaped in tune to the whims of the left. It can't be relied upon, because it isn't there. The only thing fixed about it is the need to fight for the oppressed, which not coincidentally at all is also the shaky civil rights era legal doctrine on which the whole modern house of cards rests.

Since the nature of oppression and the identification of oppressed groups is open for debate, the legal doctrine means nothing. Every Democratic presidential candidate was against gay marriage in 2008 and for it now. What changed? Nothing, except the money changing hands and sitcoms about gay couples. And the latter is what it comes down to. Instead of church and state, we are stuck with sitcom and state where the existence of a television comedy is a reflection of national values.

And what happens when one of the burgeoning shows about polygamous marriages becomes a big hit? Then we'll have no choice but to ratify polygamous marriage equality because that's the new national values system and the television ratings prove that everyone is clearly down with it.

Once fixed rights made way for identity politics, we traded legal guarantees of freedom for government oversight of a confusing caste system in which some people have more rights than others based on the amount of rights they claim not to have, but everyone has fewer rights than they did before because rights are now arbitrary and the arbitrators work for the government.

Identity politics made rights competitive. The only way to win is to play. And the only way to play is to claim oppression. And if you don't do a good job of it, good luck getting a good spot in the diversity quotas for college, business and government. But it has also made rights meaningless.

The new slogan is that gun control should be enacted because the former Congresswoman Giffords "deserves a vote". Giffords already has a vote. So do millions of gun owners. That's how it works. But votes are no longer weighed equally. The oppressed, even by a random shooting spree, get more votes than others, so long as their oppression is officially recognized and endorsed. The Giffords Vote is supposed to not only trump millions of actual votes, but also the Second Amendment.

And why not? Gay marriage lost in multiple referendums, but those results were set aside by Federal judges for being oppressive. The same thing happened with illegal aliens. Now everyone is evolving on those issues. After all, no one wants to be the bad mean oppressor. And so the actual votes are trumped by the vote of the oppressed and actual rights make way for special privileges.

The grants of new rights are oppressive because there are no longer any fixed boundaries of rights. Instead gay rights compels wedding photographers, cake shops and even churches to cater to gay weddings regardless of their own moral values. Religious freedom, which is in the Constitution, has to take a seat at the back of the bus to the new rights, which aren't.

There is no system for keeping rights from colliding with or overrunning one another. The only

governing legal mandate is preventing oppression and that means government arbitrators deciding who is screaming, "Help, help, I'm being repressed!" the loudest and with the most sincerity.

A system in which the authorities grant rights based on who can best make the case to them that their rights have been taken away is a bad idea. It's an especially bad idea in a system like ours which is rapidly sliding in a direction in which the authorities are the sole arbiters of who should have any rights at all.

If your oppressed status depends on your oppressors determining whether you are truly oppressed, then the only people who will have rights are those people whose rights the oppressors have not taken away by certifying them as oppressed.

It would be a dreadful simplification to call this lunatic state of affairs Orwellian or even Machiavellian. It makes even Kafka's worlds seem positively stodgy by comparison. It is a trial where the only people to be found not guilty are those who already been convicted. It's a system that favors the people who claim to be dispossessed by the system. It is an absurd self-negation that exists as a mathematical impossibility and a living satire.

33
comments:

Anonymous
said...

If gay couples think marriage is their 'right', the fun will really start when they experience the 'right' of gay divorce.

The core problem is that the left controls the media. While sponsorship may produce the particular agenda being pushed, collectively destruction of conventional culture works to the interest of the left, and so they push whatever cause is in the works with enthusiasm.

The work ‘privilege’ is exactly correct. Under a king subjects do not have rights; they are awarded privileges at the behest of the king. The privilege to sell salt, or transport goods, or to run a shop that makes shoes, or whatever.

Sex went gender; gender is grammar; grammar is arbitrary. Think a car, in French is feminine (la voiture) in Spanish is masculine (el coche), therefore marry your dog and vote Democrat¡ It´s kind of logic or is it?

A few years back a very wealthy whore named Paris Hilton was caught in Los Vegas with a 9MM automatic 63000 dollars and a KILO of pure heroin. She was arrested by the police and taken to jail. She was let go an hour later ROR-No bail at all. At her "hearing" the "judge" , gave her back her gun and her money, dismissed ALL charges, AND APOLIGIZED for any problems her detention may have caused her.--- The rule of law; and morality have been dead for a long time in America Daniel , the Queers have actually been kind of slow to catch up--Ray

hey thought that they had picked the lock to marriage, but they broke it instead. This is what the critics of gay marriage fear of the consequences of what has happened. The test will be if the definition of marriage is tested for elasticity. The problem will manifest itself if the test is to be to destruction. Why is it, for example, that we all automatically indulge or merely entertain recurring notions of something like, geo-engineering, for example? We see occasional articles in the press about some scientist imagining a way to modify the weather with feats of engineering. We are yet wise enough to maintain a distinction between imagination and reality, no one so far in positions of power, is inclined to put any such plan into effect because we all know that the cure could be worse than the disease. And yet with flagrant disregard, we allow a third of the public to force another third (by my estimate that the party faithful either left or right number by thirds and the rest are independents of different stripes), to dismantle not only one if their institutions but a whole slew of cultural norms, the edifice of a civilizational foundation that both the left and right share. But foundations are not important to the left, they imagine in their reverie, that all (that is solid) melts into air.

Did you know that Yahoo is currently blocking your email subscriptions? About three weeks ago we (me and wife) stopped receiving your email posts. So, a few days ago I subscribed under my gmail account. By default, all my gmail is forwarded to my primary account (sbcglobal — an AT&T domain managed by Yahoo).

Today I noticed in gmail (which I don't use too often) your post — this one in which I am commenting — along with a bounce-back message saying:

"Technical details of permanent failure:Google tried to deliver your message, but it was rejected by the server for the recipient domain sbcglobal.net by mx2.sbcglobal.am0.yahoodns.net. [98.138.206.39].

The error that the other server returned was:554 5.7.9 Message not accepted for policy reasons. See http://postmaster.yahoo.com/errors/postmaster-28.html"

So, it appears that Yahoo now considers your content to be hate speech, or some such BS.

Since consanguinity is not an issue in gay "marriage", then why shouldn't brother be allowed to marry brother, or father marry son, or grandfather marry grandson? And if that is allowed for gays, then why should it not be allowed for non-gays, provided they "take precautions"?

The original mistake was to involve the state in the institution of marriage in the first place and associate taxation with it. Marriage - and the assets of marriage - should be separate from the state entirely.

Daniel, once again you're on target in saying that once you define something to mean anything, it winds up meaning nothing. The terms "marriage equality" and "right to marry" have been poll tested and focused grouped to gain the widest possible acceptance among those who don't bother to look past the surface of any issue.

As for the equality argument, that one is easy to shoot down: It's not an equality issue because it's not an equal situation. It's like saying that pickpocketing and capital murder should be treated equally because they are both crimes. That's pretty much where the similarity ends.

To say that marriage is a "right" is like saying that there's a "right" to get plastic bags at the supermarket (which I later use as free garbage bags, BTW). It seems that these days, you can pretty much get anything you want by rephrasing it as a "right".

Overlooked is the purely mercenary aspect to the Gay Marriage movement. The proponents used to talk about the "benefits" available to married couples and almost all of those were financial of some kind. My conjecture about how this movement started coincided with the rise in the cost of health insurance. Priced out of the individual market, the proponents wanted to use the Power of the State™ to coerce companies into providing their partners with (company subsidized) health insurance. Naturally, that "I want my cut of the goodies" argument failed to get traction, the rhetoric changed to that of "equality" and "rights".

So once you have Gay Marriage, what is the argument against polygamy? Or someone wanting to marry their pet? Or their pet rock? Once you have erased that line, it's difficult to draw another. There is a definite Gramsci "tearing down of institutions" aspect to this. I don't think even most fellow travelers have thought about that.

Still, one only has to look at history when the Left has emerged victorious. The first round of victims were its enemies. The second round of victims were the people who made that victory possible.

I love your summation of this issue and the statement of "With morality sinking fast and few common values that the people in charge will accept, there is no longer a common value system to rely on." encapsulates the utter stupidity we see being propagated throughout society.

To the best of my research, I have seen estimates of gays in America comprising upwards of 5% of the population. You would think that by the wailing and moaning about abuses and lack of rights by the "oppressed" group, we would be talking about a much, much larger group. I also take it, although no clear definition has been provided, that the 5% number includes lesbians, bi-sexual, trannys, and whatever else self-described name falls under the general category of "gay."

To my thinking, this is all being done in the middle of the full deployment of the Alinsky-Cloward/Piven chaos that has most people trying to keep the dragons and alligators at bay much less have time to worry that their task is to drain the swamp in the first place. All the economic and foreign policy mischief makes for the perfect storm to keep pushing the radical agenda while America wrestles with taking another breath of foul air (because of global warming, you know!). We are supposed to be worried about someone's rights to have a cake made or pictures taken when the free market would dictate, in any sane or normal sense, going to a competitor who would gladly perform said function for a healthy fee or even for just the right to claim the mantel of being "open minded." SCOTUS thinks they can mandate who you or I can serve? Really? Who named them king of the world and of my life?

Although, the crazies almost blew it this past week in pushing the issue at the Bundy ranch. All has been well flying under the public's radar but when the Fed's bring out the guns and artillery, they got a nasty surprise when John Q. Public didn't just stay put. The power brokers realized that they were about to mess up a good deal if they let things get out of hand. If things came to blows and people bled and died, well, their walk down easy street pushing their leftest agenda would come to a screeching halt. And all because of the craziness of people like Harry Reid who, it is very apparent, would easily try to take down, the terrorists in his midst. Of course, they are terrorists because they dare to infringe on his god given right to big deals with solar farms and land grabs that are federally mandated and backed by the Chinese. Yes, all for the good of the Reids, Nevandans and Americans who are friends of the above. If you are not one of the above, you must be a terrorist because Harry and his kind will be coming for you.

Now, where were we? Oh, yes. Gay marriage. Whatever. That is a small thing compared to letting them adopt children and raise them in so-called families. Otherwise, the gay couples would have no natural way of propagating themselves. They would simply die out and remain a very small segment of society. But they can't have that so they push for adoption rights while pushing for abortion rights for regular heterosexual folks. Wow. Something is crazy there, isn't it? All the rights for them and no rights for the haters. They are special, don't you know.

Wrong is the new right. Sounds like islam. An upside-down world. In 5 years I expect the islamic state in Iraq and Syria mohamadons will upset the Dallas Transsexuals by a score of 115 beheadings to 110 in the inaugural islamic religious Olympics. A new world record of 2,765,904 vibrant ‘alahu akbar’ utterances was achieved for a 60 minute event.

Either you are the most clear thinking man on the planet or I am getting smarter with age, as I tie more dots together following a reading of a SofK article, than I did in pre-internet days, reading 5 years’ worth of newspapers. Where were you when I was in university? Kudoos. Max.

"Gay rights advocates insist that there is some magic difference between polygamy and gay marriage. There isn't any difference except the number. And if we're not going to be bound by any antiquated notion that marriage is an organic institution between man and woman, then why should we be bound by mere number?"Comment: Great post. Sadly the destruction of meaning is even worse! The "organic institution" to which you refer has a basis in the biology of reproduction, and the natural desire and need of children for their mother and father. Once that's discarded (and it's not affected by the fact that not every married man and woman have kids--an argument found persuasive in the California case) then the meaning of "marriage" is completely un-moored from both biology and history. that makes it easier to un-moor gender from biology as well, which "trans" movement is gaining ground rapidly. Birth certificates based on biology, and once considered a "vital statistic", are now changed based on the person's individual "decision" of what gender to be. Death certificates are undergoing the same thing in some states. It's not necessary to deny science to stop any mistreatment of men who want to dress like women, etc. There is no need to harass such people, but likewise there is no need to abandon common sense and scientific evidence to accommodate how they want the world to be. Did Jesus play with the dinosaurs? Personally, I much doubt it. The current scientific evidence is overwhelming (carbon dating, fossils, etc.). But it makes no less sense than two men having a baby, or someone changing gender, sans even hormone treatment or surgery. Chelsea Manning anyone?

If water can be dry then water doesn't mean what we thought it meant and its meaning is destroyed. Okay, evaporated.

"Gay marriage" brings the word describing the rejection of sexual self-restraint (gay), next to the word for sexual self-restraint (marriage) and destroys the word for restraint. Marriage was supposed to be for the good of a child, to be known and loved and cared for by his own mom and dad.

I've been very impressed by the French protests, Manif Pour Tous and Journée de l'école de retrait (JRE).

I don't consider marriage as a purely social institution but a religious one. Marriage for connotes religion, vows made before G-d in a house of worship. I have mixed feelings on civil unions. Is there anything wrong with giving gays expanded civil rights in terms of, say, insurance coverage for these couples, or the ability to collect a partner's Social Security benefits if his or her partner dies?

As a Christian, nothing happening in the world is a surprise to me. The Bible tells us that when people turn away from God they will turn to sin and vice, believe all kinds of false prophets, and reject the truth.

God has everything under control and knows our hearts. He is the final judge.

While the Left are so hell bent on watering down / broadening the definition of 'Marriage' to include Homosexuals; it won't be long before the Polygamists wish to have their '' rights respected.marriage

And after that : Muslim men will be clamoring for the right to 'marry' 12 year old girls.

And if Muslim men have that right on the grounds of religion : what is to stop others claiming a right to marry what we now consider 'under-age' girls or boys ?

Pedophilia or Pedestry : call it what you will : it won't be long before such groups will also claim that just like homosexuals : that their sexual predilections are genetically based : & that as such they are 'normal'.

Remember : it was Gays who insisted that they are genetically inclined to be homosexual... So why not Pederists and Pedophiles ?

This 'genetic' claim will be eventually pushed onto us by those on the Left.

And the greatest irony will be : that the very groups that started this ball rolling aka the Feminists and Gays : will end up being unable to protect the very ones they claim need special legal considerations & compensations in the eyes of the law.

But by then, it will be too late : for they will have woken up to a nightmare scenario of their own creation.

If marriage is merely the gratification of ones emotional and physical needs, which is what gay marriage is, then the limit of number of members or age or relationships do have to come under scrutiny. Gay unions are always sterile. Polygamists do procreate.

Thus the need to classify the first (!)Fort Hood shootings as "workplace violence". The actual victims(the shootees) could under no circumstances be allowed victim status, because the shooter was alread in one of the top victim classes.(Muslim)

I predict that in the future the only activities that remain legal are gay marriage and abortion. Everything else will have some kind of law against it, but those two you'll be free to engage in without interference from the State.

Just learning that even its legislative supporters acknowledge its unpopularity and lack of legal basis, as in this Dec 2014 Boston Globe article:-- Tactical acumen “was the reason that we had marriage equality in Massachusetts,” she [Isaccson] said. ... Gay rights groups, convinced they did not have the votes they needed to defeat the effort outright, engaged in a complex game of parliamentary politics: delaying votes when they could and coordinating floor strategy through a series of prearranged codes sent by beeper.

Gay rights advocate Arline Isaacson said Rosenberg was the movement’s “go-to guy in the Senate,” well versed in the parliamentary maneuvers that pushed the issue into the 2007 constitutional convention, where advocates for gay marriage finally had the votes to prevail.rosenberg-personal-life-has-been-private/SIyYVWfCJOxMpGnLcQPGjP/story.html?p1=Article_InThisSection_Bottom